-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
rumor?
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
If it has a good EVF yes.
--
GiorgioPM
--
GiorgioPM
Hopefully you mean OVF
jerry zhang
Forum Enthusiast
rofl... FF with EVF... thats a turn-off dont you think...
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
The only way to have a reliable in camera control of WB is a calibrated EVF.
With OVF, in difficult light situation, the only way to get the color you see is by EVF.
You could use a gray chart to calibrate your WB, but it is the same nuisance to use an obsolete external experimenter.
Now days we use the camera meter and no more external meters.
Moreover, even if you use this primitive (gray chart), you have an OBJECTIVE evaluation (like to use a film), instead the human vision is SUBJECTIVE, then not necessarily coinciding with the metered WB.
I give you an example.
During a autumn sunset I took slides of a forest with very bright yellow trees against a fantastic blue-violet mountain background.
I shut a complete roll of diaps to be used as reference for some my paintings (I have that hobby too).
When developed, the slides showed not so bright yellow trees against (ouch) a dirty brown-gray background.
What did it happen?
In the human vision a bright color (the orange-yellow trees) influences the surrounding shadows (the nearly neutral brown-gray mountain background) by its complementary color (that beautiful blue-violet).
So the objective reproduction of the film had nothing to do with what I was looking at.
For the above reasons I consider an OVF camera as temporary solution and an (expensive) FF can’t be chosen as a temporary solution.
--
GiorgioPM
With OVF, in difficult light situation, the only way to get the color you see is by EVF.
You could use a gray chart to calibrate your WB, but it is the same nuisance to use an obsolete external experimenter.
Now days we use the camera meter and no more external meters.
Moreover, even if you use this primitive (gray chart), you have an OBJECTIVE evaluation (like to use a film), instead the human vision is SUBJECTIVE, then not necessarily coinciding with the metered WB.
I give you an example.
During a autumn sunset I took slides of a forest with very bright yellow trees against a fantastic blue-violet mountain background.
I shut a complete roll of diaps to be used as reference for some my paintings (I have that hobby too).
When developed, the slides showed not so bright yellow trees against (ouch) a dirty brown-gray background.
What did it happen?
In the human vision a bright color (the orange-yellow trees) influences the surrounding shadows (the nearly neutral brown-gray mountain background) by its complementary color (that beautiful blue-violet).
So the objective reproduction of the film had nothing to do with what I was looking at.
For the above reasons I consider an OVF camera as temporary solution and an (expensive) FF can’t be chosen as a temporary solution.
--
GiorgioPM
jerry zhang
Forum Enthusiast
i believe sony will eventually release a FF, but not in 2007 i dont think... 2007 is for 7d upgrade, and pehaps something below a100
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
Something below a100 should be EVF.
$500-600 with kit lenses is about the price of an advaced digicamera (a substitution of A2 & R1).
With $500 body only and an 16-80 CZ would be about the price (less than) I bought the Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi in 2002: acceptable, waiting for a FF with EVF.
--
GiorgioPM
$500-600 with kit lenses is about the price of an advaced digicamera (a substitution of A2 & R1).
With $500 body only and an 16-80 CZ would be about the price (less than) I bought the Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi in 2002: acceptable, waiting for a FF with EVF.
--
GiorgioPM
CM PHoto
Senior Member
I think that if Sony came out with a dSLR with EVF, it would be universally badged as the "Playstation Camera" and Sony would not be taken seriously from that point on, not mater what the benefits are.
If you live and die by color accuracy, you might consider buying a Color Meter II and programming in the results under the Kelvin setting.
However, WB can be improved, especially AWB in artificial light. But if color accuracy is so important that you are willing to throw away the OVF, you aren't shooting in AWB anyway.
chad
If you live and die by color accuracy, you might consider buying a Color Meter II and programming in the results under the Kelvin setting.
However, WB can be improved, especially AWB in artificial light. But if color accuracy is so important that you are willing to throw away the OVF, you aren't shooting in AWB anyway.
chad
Zenmervolt
Forum Enthusiast
Since you should be shooting RAW if it's critical enough that WB is of that great a concern for you, I fail to see why in-camera correction is so vital.
EVF is awful for focusing, awful in low light, the resolution is poor, and it eats barrery power.
TTL optical is by far the best for all-around. EVF is useful only in very limited applications. EVF is a gimmik.
CM PHoto
Senior Member
In camera on-site is not where I am worried about color balance. That is where I am worried about capturing the image. I worry about color balance in front of my calibrated LCD monitor while in PS.
With all due respect and for Sony's sake, I hope you are waiting a VERY long time for your EVF. I can not imagine EVF being well received at all by shooters who focus on capturing the moment when their camera is in their hands.
chad
With all due respect and for Sony's sake, I hope you are waiting a VERY long time for your EVF. I can not imagine EVF being well received at all by shooters who focus on capturing the moment when their camera is in their hands.
chad
Dennis Phillips
Senior Member
clip
Are you saying you want a camera to mimic the optical aberration your eye suffers from the influence of complementary colours? I don't understand what such an alteration of objective colouring would have to do with a "reliable WB", or with the perceived value of an expensive camera.
This sounds more like a manipulation for post processing than a requirement for the camera's processor.
the body that cuold accompany final relase of 16-80 CZ shouldn't be FF 'couse the lens just will not work with it... can you imagine new top notch CZ zoom not working with new body (prosumer hopefully) presented at the same time? I can't...
about OVF vs EVF -> why always one or another? I think the future OVF's will have some usefull features of EVF (like exact WB) but will keep all the OVF advantages. Impossible? Few years ago it was impossible for me to buy a dSLR 'couse of the prices... Impossible is nothing. Just use some fancy electronical coating that can change hue/tint of OVF and you have realtime WB preview on old-school OVF...
about OVF vs EVF -> why always one or another? I think the future OVF's will have some usefull features of EVF (like exact WB) but will keep all the OVF advantages. Impossible? Few years ago it was impossible for me to buy a dSLR 'couse of the prices... Impossible is nothing. Just use some fancy electronical coating that can change hue/tint of OVF and you have realtime WB preview on old-school OVF...
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
Understand.
PRO landscapers use MF.
PRO fotoreporters need fast cameras and currently AF with OVF is faster.
The most of PROsumers mimic PRO without any rationale.
May be the entry level DSLR will adopt EVF first and FF will follow when photographers will discover that beginners using EVF will take same or better (artistical) landscapes than advanced ones using OVF.
So no FF for me.
Probably you didn't read all my post or I was not enough clear.
The colors you see in particular situations (the most attactive from an artistical point of view) are an optical illusion (give a look to the impressionist color theory).
No any instrument can reproduce/measure your optical illusion.
As I shut in AE (but compensating manually), I would use AWB compensating manually (this is the reason of EVF).
There are tricks to obtain very quickly the correct color using AWB (and moving the lens around the subject), looking at EVF and then AE lock.
--
GiorgioPM
CM PHoto
Senior Member
I have seen lots of great pictures taken with prosumer fixed lens cameras. I honestly think that, not an advanced-ameteur dSLR, is your best option for getting the results you want.
Also, based on your descriiption, it sounds like your work flow is completely backwwards from the rest of the world, which may be why you have this unrelenting need for EVF. You might want to consider improving your workfow.
chad
Also, based on your descriiption, it sounds like your work flow is completely backwwards from the rest of the world, which may be why you have this unrelenting need for EVF. You might want to consider improving your workfow.
chad
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
A "releable WB" fails in particular conditions (mainly at sunset and sunrise) and in those conditions the EVF helps.
Some of similar happens with AE. Generally AE works fine, but without a TTL viewfinder you cant verify and compensate.
EVF is opposed to OVF as SRL system (or DSLR) is opposed to rangefinder.
Please note that digital rangefinder cameras are currently in production (Leica M8 Digital Rangefinder Camera $4,795).
The rangefinder is tough to die as the OVF.
No direct relationship between color illusion (I don't like to use the word "aberration" to address the beautiful color illusion at the sunset) and FF.
FF means more pixels for the equivalent APS noise.
More pixels mean digital zoom available with still sufficient resolution.
Digital zoom means to have the capability not to change the lenses when you are in hostile environment (windy desert).
Digital zoom means better manual focus when AF fails.
You can group pixel together to have higher ISO (with 22MP you can have 5.5 high ISO images: sufficient in many cases).
The alternative could be bigger pixels and better ISO (but I feel that there is some exageration in ISO request, considering the available IS).
I would pay for all those advantages.
But, if the alternative is APS EVF or FF OVF I would chose APS EVF.
The postprocessing manipulation (except you feel fun to play with PS) should be limitad to enhance a photo that you had to take in bad lighting conditions. E.g. when you are traveling and find something of interesting at noon. If you cant return on the place, you have to take as it is.
That is the case you need to manipulate the image to get acceptable.
I wished not to have to modify what ia exceptional in nature.
It takes a lot of time and, when you are on a trip for a month, it is difficult to remember all.
--
GiorgioPM
BackToSlr
Senior Member
Macro work, and everything else that needs you to see the detail you are exposing, unless u have a bigger display, say 4x4 inch display with much finer pixel than currently available. I agree it will show u great color balance especially long exposure background exposure etc. But it is no OVF for resolution.
I guess it may be interesting to some ppl to have an optional EVF.which can be plugged in to OVF and can receive exposure data to extrapolate the image. Since the sensors themselves will generate a lot of noise if exposed fo r that long (continuous as opposed to exposure for taking the picture) EVF will be driven off an auxilary sensor...Hmm... sounds so close to non SLR viewfinders
Regards,
N
--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter
I guess it may be interesting to some ppl to have an optional EVF.which can be plugged in to OVF and can receive exposure data to extrapolate the image. Since the sensors themselves will generate a lot of noise if exposed fo r that long (continuous as opposed to exposure for taking the picture) EVF will be driven off an auxilary sensor...Hmm... sounds so close to non SLR viewfinders
Regards,
N
--
It is funny how, everyone who agrees with you seems so much smarter
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
When I say calibrated, I mean that you can see exactly what your camera is taking, a correspondence between sensor and display.
If you mean action photography may be better OVF. I say "may be" because nobody knows the focusing speed of current state of the art EVFs.
If you mean landscaping, I feel is better, faster and more user friendly the EVF.
If you have the opportunity, put your eyes in a A2 viewfinder (and it is 2 years old).
Of course, if you evaluate EVFs having other cameras as reference, I can understand your concern.
Do broadcast video cameras use OVF or EVF? (and are used for sport event broadcast).
Please note that Sony is leader in broadcast level video cameras and can offer us some surprise.
May be the first exit will be a cheap APS, but may be also a FF will follow not so far.
--
GiorgioPM
GiorgioPM
Leading Member
CZ 16-80 is not for FF, but other very expensive lenses are FF.
I feel a cheap APS EVF will substitute R1 & A2.
R1 had a very good 24-120mm (equivalent to cropped 16-80).
Note that the only important brands not having advanced digicams are currently Sony and Nikon.
Are all the other stupid to produce not selled advanced digicams or is Sony stupid not to produce selled advanced digicams?
I feel that the answer is a cheap (under A100) EVF interchangeable lenses camera.
With Kit lenses has the price of R1, the behaviour of R1 (EVF like A2 or better) but with lenses upgrade option.
I proposed something like that in another forum (an LCD film, that is transparent, over the focusing screen), but someone replied that it would make dimmer the system.about OVF vs EVF -> why always one or another? I think the future
OVF's will have some usefull features of EVF (like exact WB) but
will keep all the OVF advantages. Impossible? Few years ago it was
impossible for me to buy a dSLR 'couse of the prices... Impossible
is nothing. Just use some fancy electronical coating that can
change hue/tint of OVF and you have realtime WB preview on
old-school OVF...
But also EVFs and image processing is evolving.
The hardest hobstacle is the psicological resistence to introduce something that get easier to take photos.
Too much PROsumers are more focused into technical aspects than into artistical aspects.
--
GiorgioPM
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum